1．What is heredity? The sum of characteristics of phenotype re-copied and transmitted from parent to offspring. This replication includes two points: First, the phenotype which was copied by offspring, had been existence in their parent, and second, the phenotype will be re-discovered in the offspring. In other words, if one characteristic of phenotype in offspring had not ever found in their parent, then the new characteristic is not hereditary. There is almost not Learning behavior in the "lower" animals. Without any learning, the behavioral patterns will be re-appearance in offspring. For example, the spider’s weaving behavior,it is just heredity. The "higher" animals,however, often have some new behaviors which are out of heredity. So, you confused the two things in nature, phenotype and phenotype-forming ability. I emphasize that " genes is not the only decisive factor on the phenotype," but you refute it as " the capacity to learn (the phenotype-forming ability) is itself determined by genetics," ... .... Is not it?

2．The topic of our original discussion is the reproductive success rate of each generation, or the comparative indicators of adaptability between contemporary different individuals or different species. But you have turned into discussion of a species’s extinct causation after its millions generations. They clearly are two different issues.

The super long lifespan species I mentioned is merely as a result of an inference. But your super bacteria is expressed as a kind of facts. Do you really think that bacteria are the most successful creatures on the planet? Your conclusion is too hasty. The fact is that the reproductive success rate of single-cell organisms are significantly lower than multi-cellular organisms, and the requirements of single-cell organisms niche tend to be harsh. Also, there were many extinct bacteria species in the history. from yours opinion, it seems that your bacteria "heroes",whichever species, lived before us ,after us ,and will live forever. Do you think your words are facts?

Obviously, you are drawing conclusions not supported by any data you have so far presented.

wellalt wrote:1．What is heredity? The sum of characteristics of phenotype re-copied and transmitted from parent to offspring. This replication includes two points: First, the phenotype which was copied by offspring, had been existence in their parent, and second, the phenotype will be re-discovered in the offspring. In other words, if one characteristic of phenotype in offspring had not ever found in their parent, then the new characteristic is not hereditary. There is almost not Learning behavior in the "lower" animals. Without any learning, the behavioral patterns will be re-appearance in offspring. For example, the spider’s weaving behavior,it is just heredity. The "higher" animals,however, often have some new behaviors which are out of heredity. So, you confused the two things in nature, phenotype and phenotype-forming ability. I emphasize that " genes is not the only decisive factor on the phenotype," but you refute it as " the capacity to learn (the phenotype-forming ability) is itself determined by genetics," ... .... Is not it?

And you did not answer me... is it not? I don't understand why you avoid using the term "genotype." Instead you are making up terms, like "phenotype-forming ability." Yes, learned behavior, which is often a cultural phenomena, can improve fitness and is not part of what we normally call heredity. This I agree with.

wellalt wrote:2．The topic of our original discussion is the reproductive success rate of each generation, or the comparative indicators of adaptability between contemporary different individuals or different species. But you have turned into discussion of a species’s extinct causation after its millions generations. They clearly are two different issues.

You brought up long-life and low reproductive rate as a successful adaptation. I brought up the extinction as an example of how such adaptations can lead to the death of a species. You are the one leading us off on tangents, not me.

wellalt wrote:The super long lifespan species I mentioned is merely as a result of an inference. But your super bacteria is expressed as a kind of facts. Do you really think that bacteria are the most successful creatures on the planet? Your conclusion is too hasty. The fact is that the reproductive success rate of single-cell organisms are significantly lower than multi-cellular organisms, and the requirements of single-cell organisms niche tend to be harsh. Also, there were many extinct bacteria species in the history. from yours opinion, it seems that your bacteria "heroes",whichever species, lived before us ,after us ,and will live forever. Do you think your words are facts?

I mentioned nothing about "super" bacteria. Bacteria are the most successful organisms based on total: biomass, number of species, number of individuals, number of ecological niches, length of time in existance on this planet, among other qualifications. No, you are wrong that bacteria only survive in harsh environments. They are often the only ones who can survive in harsh environments, but they exist everywhere, including on and in your own body. If you wish to dispute any of this, please present your evidence.